This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-10-23 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Under Article 2206[44] of the Civil Code, the heirs of the victim are entitled to indemnity for loss of earning capacity. Compensation of this nature is awarded not for loss of earnings, but for loss of capacity to earn money.[45] The indemnification for loss of earning capacity partakes of the nature of actual damages which must be duly proven[46] by competent proof and the best obtainable evidence thereof.[47] Thus, as a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim for damages for loss of earning capacity. By way of exception, damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded despite the absence of documentary evidence when (1) the deceased is self-employed and earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, in which case, judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the deceased's line of work no documentary evidence is available; or (2) the deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.[48] | |||||
|
2011-09-14 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Both the RTC and the Court of Appeals failed to consider that under Article 2206 of the Civil Code, the accused are also jointly and severally liable for the loss of the earning capacity of Biag and such indemnity should be paid to his heirs.[56] In People v. Jadap,[57] this Court said: As a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim for damages for loss of earning capacity. By way of exception, damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded despite the absence of documentary evidence when (1) the deceased is self-employed and earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, in which case judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the deceased's line of work no documentary evidence is available; or (2) the deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws. In this case, no documentary evidence was presented to prove the claim of the victim's heirs for damages by reason of loss of earning capacity. However, the victim's father testified that at the time of his son's death, he was only 20 years old and was working as a mason with a monthly income of P3,000.00. We find the father's testimony sufficient to justify the award of damages for loss of earning capacity.[58] | |||||
|
2011-01-12 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Appellants' attempt to discredit Constantino must fail since there was no showing of any improper motive on Constantino's part that would induce him to testify falsely against Nagares.[13] Further, settled is the rule that the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is generally accorded great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal since the trial court was in a better position to decide thereon, having personally heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[14] | |||||